CW3: Jurong East Int - Larkin/Kota Raya II Ter
-
So HseoChin,Im MY Those Dennis Dart/Lances,MAN SL252 & Scanias are considered low floor with steps right?Originally posted by hseochin:The 'ultra low floor theme' that appears to me as to why both the Habit here & HI's bodywork adopted this black glass section, so as to make the vehicle appear lower than it really is. Not much practical point to me, only aesthetical !
In TIBS case, i believe back in 2000 when the Habit was launched here, they probably found the O 405 GN too expensive so decided to stick with O 405 G while the habit body may have been done with O 405 GN in mind instead. So Hispano might have then simply 'blanked out' the excess glass area as the O 405 G is only a normal 3-step low floor citybus & not ultra-low floor with zero steps.
Anyway, this black glass effect only makes the bus appear lower than it actually is during daytime only, because during nitetime with the interior lights on the higher actual height of the window stills become so obvious that it's a normal higher height bus.
As to no low floor buses in Malaysia, i don't think so.
What's low floor in the 1st place ? I consider the O 305, O 405, N113, Lance etc. as low floor citybuses as the step count @ normal step height does not exceed 3 steps. Ultra low floor those with zero step or just 1 step from the road to get in. Anything > 3 steps @ normal step height (like the OF & OH series etc.) these then are not low floor vehicles.
For a bus to be classified as a (purpose built) citybus, the basic requirement is low floor as mentioned above. Low profile tyres too i'll say. Higher height buses used as citybuses are NOT real citybuses as such & should not technically be classified as such.
The 1st low floor bus in Malaysia i'll consider as the MAN SL 252, with roughly similar dimensions as the M-B O 405, both of which ARE purpose built citybuses & the 3-step floor low enough to be classified as a low floor bus. It's of course NOT ultra low floor though since there's > 1 step onboard from the road !
As for HI's new M-B like those with the kampung roof bodywork & that unit shown in your photo, the floor height is low enough & step count & step height all low enough to be classified as a low floor hence 'real' citybus chassis. Of course NOT ultra low floor though. Same as with the O 405 G with Habit bodywork here. Not surprising then to note of M-B's new model normenclarature like CBC, which stands for 'citybus chassis' while IBC for 'intercity bus chassis' etc. -
If I'm not wrong, there are stepless Volvo B7Rs on Sentosa using Liannex bodywork. I think 1186 got the photos.
-
That's rubbish.
Because i've personally observed people board @ Woodlands & buy tickets whether on 170, 160, CW1 or CW2 !!
Only on SJE nobody buy tickets as they board & that's ONLY because this stupid SJE still prefers to sell tickets the 'old fashioned' way thru their kiosk @ Larkin or some travel agents @ JBCS or Merlin Tower !! SJE loses out this way to all the other operators above. High time SJE install onboard ticketing machines as well.Originally posted by sbst275:Ya lah... So even Handal Indah also dun follow their boss rule...
By right, JB there rule is slack...
If had known of today, Handal Indah would not been so until like that
But I dun think ICA will allow this @ WDL Checkpoint... SG we go by rules
-
Not just in MY, even in 1st world countries in Europe the criteria for classification as low floor bus is the height of the floor from the road i.e. must not > than certain preset guideline limit. How many steps or height of each step needed to reach the floor height from the road then becomes of secondary importance. Another criteria is the height of the 1st step from the road, which depends on the tyre size used i.e. whether it's low profile citybus tyres or not.
Those with even lower floor heights then considered as ultra low floor buses, which have become more popular in recent years in Europe & slowly in SGP.
Few days ago i was walking along Jalan Pudu in KL, noted they also have citybus with 2 shallow steps, like some in JB. Those i defintely classifly as low floor although not ultra low floor.
The higher floor height bus-chassi seems cheaper so that should explain why the majority of buses in MY used as citybuses are not 'purpose built' citybuses yet.
M-B O 405, O 405 G, MAN SL 252, Scania N113, Dennis Lance/Dart are low enough to be 'entry level' low floor buses. But they are not ultra low floor.Originally posted by carbikebus:So HseoChin,Im MY Those Dennis Dart/Lances,MAN SL252 & Scanias are considered low floor with steps right? -
How about the B10Ms? What do you classify them as?Originally posted by hseochin:M-B O 405, O 405 G, MAN SL 252, Scania N113, Dennis Lance/Dart are low enough to be 'entry level' low floor buses. But they are not ultra low floor. -
As for Volvo B10M (all Mks.), this seems in the 'middle of nowhere' because
it's certainly NOT that low in floor height when in the company of N113, O 305, O 405, Lance, in fact many others who fit the role of citybus much better than B10M, which don't even come as standard with citybus type low profile tyres !
I'll classify B10M more suitable for use with a coach body than a citybus body
i.e. B10M better off as coach than citybus ! [But due to it's lousy suspension ride comfort, there's many other better choices around still]
Some drivers may like the B10M due to the weight distribution being more in front (because the engine is quite close upfront) which can provide more steering traction especially in wet weather driving. But what's appealing to the driver need NOT be appealing to the passengers, who tend to be more concerned about the suspension ride comfort especially those seated @ the extreme rear who WILL find the B10M terribly uncomfortable (for an air-suspended bus !) even @ slower road speeds.
In overview i consider the B10M below the 'entry level' low floor category (which those like O 405, N113 belong to) i.e. B10M not low enough to consider as a low floor bus although when compared to OF or OH series, B10M lower in floor height than these due to the horizontally mounted engine. That's why i say B10M 'in the middle of nowhere' ! In modern times, not a model of bus or coach worth considering anymore.Originally posted by iveco:How about the B10Ms? What do you classify them as? -
They are mid-engine, and this 100% makes them not possible to even be in your "low-entry" categoryOriginally posted by hseochin:As for Volvo B10M (all Mks.), this seems in the 'middle of nowhere' because
it's certainly NOT that low in floor height when in the company of N113, O 305, O 405, Lance, in fact many others who fit the role of citybus much better than B10M, which don't even come as standard with citybus type low profile tyres !
I'll classify B10M more suitable for use with a coach body than a citybus body
i.e. B10M better off as coach than citybus ! [But due to it's lousy suspension ride comfort, there's many other better choices around still]
Some drivers may like the B10M due to the weight distribution being more in front (because the engine is quite close upfront) which can provide more steering traction especially in wet weather driving. But what's appealing to the driver need NOT be appealing to the passengers, who tend to be more concerned about the suspension ride comfort especially those seated @ the extreme rear who WILL find the B10M terribly uncomfortable (for an air-suspended bus !) even @ slower road speeds.
In overview i consider the B10M below the 'entry level' low floor category (which those like O 405, N113 belong to) i.e. B10M not low enough to consider as a low floor bus although when compared to OF or OH series, B10M lower in floor height than these due to the horizontally mounted engine. That's why i say B10M 'in the middle of nowhere' ! In modern times, not a model of bus or coach worth considering anymore. -
1st day in sv
Poor loading, frequency during off peak is 30 mins
It seems that 666 is a extended rt, it seems to my memories that it loop @ Gelang Patah
Rt too long, take 90 - 120 mins to complete -
Originally posted by sbst275:But I dun think ICA will allow this @ WDL Checkpoint... SG we go by rules
I had tried that before.Originally posted by hseochin:That's rubbish.
Because i've personally observed people board @ Woodlands & buy tickets whether on 170, 160, CW1 or CW2 !!
Took service 160 from Jurong East to Woodlands checkpoint, use the overhead bridge to get to arrival side, and transfer to service 170 to Woodlands Centre Rd. 
(For joyride). -
Sv 170 and 160 sell ticket @ WDL??Originally posted by tranquilice:I had tried that before. Took service 160 from Jurong East to Woodlands checkpoint, use the overhead bridge to get to arrival side, and transfer to service 170 to Woodlands Centre Rd. (For joyride).
I tell your why... Because LTA thoughts of only making $$... End up now everyone luan luan sell ticket...
Sense it is time to inform ICA bef trouble brew of a chaotic checkpoint -
I think that would open up a can of worms.Originally posted by sbst275:Sv 170 and 160 sell ticket @ WDL??
I tell your why... Because LTA thoughts of only making $$... End up now everyone luan luan sell ticket...
Sense it is time to inform ICA bef trouble brew of a chaotic checkpoint -
Sell ticket as in SBST staffs selling tickets like the bus conductor or put cash into coinbox onboard bus then collect ticket?Originally posted by sbst275:Sv 170 and 160 sell ticket @ WDL??
I actually mean the latter. -
It would NOT tend to have any 'chaotic' checkpoint !
In fact the exact opposite to that i have to say.
Because no point to have people stranded there with no tickets to buy & the vehicles go largely empty as a result & these people do what ? Walk for how many mins. away to the next nearest bus stop ?!! Stupid to even think so !
The flow of human traffic out of the checkpoint premises SLOWS down as a result which is no good as there's already enough crowding there !!!!
Therefore by buying tickets upon boarding @ the checkpoint premises,
this ensures nobody is stranded behind which also speeds up the flow of human traffic especially during peak hours ! Think about it, how fast can a person walk compared to how fast even a slow moving bus can go ?!?? Anything which can help to speed up the 'clearance' of people from the checkpoint premises HAS got be regarded a positive development instead of otherwise !Originally posted by sbst275:Sv 170 and 160 sell ticket @ WDL??
I tell your why... Because LTA thoughts of only making $$... End up now everyone luan luan sell ticket...
Sense it is time to inform ICA bef trouble brew of a chaotic checkpoint -
It's sensibly OK for people to board & buy tickets onboard the bus since this helps to speed up the flow or discharge of human traffic out of the already congested checkpoint complex. Furthermore, such a practice does not require any facility or consume any space on the checkpoint premises since there's no need for any ticketing booths !!Originally posted by iveco:I think that would open up a can of worms.
-
Loading would take time to build up as people need time to get more familiar with the route covered etc.
30 min off-peak frequency is definitely reasonable, taking into account lower loads compared to other high load routes !
Route 666 expected to loop @ Johor CIQ complex instead, starting out & ending @ Larkin. In fact, i find it sensible for them to have this idea of CW3 with 666 instead CW3 covering 'everything' since there's more choice & ends up faster than if CW3 alone covering the same stops. By ending CW3 @ Kota Raya it also fits in nicely with their Senai airport express for those using Air Asia.
Ride long ?? Would also depend on traffic situation !
Sometimes it takes 1 hour to get thru the stupid Woodlands checkpoint & i'll put it @ 50% due to the slow & inefficient pace of clearance 50% due to the poor road design & traffic management near the checkpoint complex outside the Woodlands cinema where nobody seems to follow the yellow box rules, not surprising in view of the bad traffic circumstances !
So what makes of vehicle used ?? Manual or automatic gearbox ?
I'll expect HI's overall travelling speeds much faster than SBST since a larger proportion of their route are on the Johor highways & a 6-speed manual geared M-B CBC 1725 would have no problems doing 100+ km/h @ 2000 rpm.Originally posted by sbst275:1st day in sv
Poor loading, frequency during off peak is 30 mins
It seems that 666 is a extended rt, it seems to my memories that it loop @ Gelang Patah
Rt too long, take 90 - 120 mins to complete -
Seriously say,Those B10Ms are not suitable for modern days citybuses!If given a choices,Then i would definately choose MAN SL252 OR Even Dennis Lance in addition to O 405 & N113CRBs fleets.(I don't understand why they prefer B10Ms over Lances which is similiar in pricesOriginally posted by hseochin:As for Volvo B10M (all Mks.), this seems in the 'middle of nowhere' because
it's certainly NOT that low in floor height when in the company of N113, O 305, O 405, Lance, in fact many others who fit the role of citybus much better than B10M, which don't even come as standard with citybus type low profile tyres !
I'll classify B10M more suitable for use with a coach body than a citybus body
i.e. B10M better off as coach than citybus ! [But due to it's lousy suspension ride comfort, there's many other better choices around still]
Some drivers may like the B10M due to the weight distribution being more in front (because the engine is quite close upfront) which can provide more steering traction especially in wet weather driving. But what's appealing to the driver need NOT be appealing to the passengers, who tend to be more concerned about the suspension ride comfort especially those seated @ the extreme rear who WILL find the B10M terribly uncomfortable (for an air-suspended bus !) even @ slower road speeds.
In overview i consider the B10M below the 'entry level' low floor category (which those like O 405, N113 belong to) i.e. B10M not low enough to consider as a low floor bus although when compared to OF or OH series, B10M lower in floor height than these due to the horizontally mounted engine. That's why i say B10M 'in the middle of nowhere' ! In modern times, not a model of bus or coach worth considering anymore.
-
Actually, it is more towards safetyOriginally posted by hseochin:It would NOT tend to have any 'chaotic' checkpoint !
In fact the exact opposite to that i have to say.
Because no point to have people stranded there with no tickets to buy & the vehicles go largely empty as a result & these people do what ? Walk for how many mins. away to the next nearest bus stop ?!! Stupid to even think so !
The flow of human traffic out of the checkpoint premises SLOWS down as a result which is no good as there's already enough crowding there !!!!
Therefore by buying tickets upon boarding @ the checkpoint premises,
this ensures nobody is stranded behind which also speeds up the flow of human traffic especially during peak hours ! Think about it, how fast can a person walk compared to how fast even a slow moving bus can go ?!?? Anything which can help to speed up the 'clearance' of people from the checkpoint premises HAS got be regarded a positive development instead of otherwise !
If you have a chaotic checkpoint, a terrorist may just be able to plant a bomb easily esp in the light that SG is a likely target -
Already if bth sides are no jam, 160 faster to Kota RayaOriginally posted by hseochin:Loading would take time to build up as people need time to get more familiar with the route covered etc.
30 min off-peak frequency is definitely reasonable, taking into account lower loads compared to other high load routes !
Route 666 expected to loop @ Johor CIQ complex instead, starting out & ending @ Larkin. In fact, i find it sensible for them to have this idea of CW3 with 666 instead CW3 covering 'everything' since there's more choice & ends up faster than if CW3 alone covering the same stops. By ending CW3 @ Kota Raya it also fits in nicely with their Senai airport express for those using Air Asia.
Ride long ?? Would also depend on traffic situation !
Sometimes it takes 1 hour to get thru the stupid Woodlands checkpoint & i'll put it @ 50% due to the slow & inefficient pace of clearance 50% due to the poor road design & traffic management near the checkpoint complex outside the Woodlands cinema where nobody seems to follow the yellow box rules, not surprising in view of the bad traffic circumstances !
So what makes of vehicle used ?? Manual or automatic gearbox ?
I'll expect HI's overall travelling speeds much faster than SBST since a larger proportion of their route are on the Johor highways & a 6-speed manual geared M-B CBC 1725 would have no problems doing 100+ km/h @ 2000 rpm.
I must warn you that in the happening that bth sides are jammed, you can be stucked @ Tuas for 3 hrs, the worst ever was 4.5 hrs
Antother issue abt the fare is, $3, unless you stay @ Western side, it would be not worth it -
In terms of distance (i.e. how many km ?) what's the respective route distance for CW3 & SBST 160 ?? Take that divided by time taken get average travelling speed, in order to better gauge who's faster.
If CW3's route distance is longer (i.e. they serve a wider area) then even if their time taken is longer, overall it'll still be inconclusive if they are really slower. Comparing apples with oranges, the conclusions would never be too reliable ! As i've mentioned in previous posts, i consider CW3 not being in direct competition with SBST 160, just close competition only since they don't use exactly the same route, hence they don't serve exactly the same market.
Nevertheless, i'm curious to find out myself who's faster just from Kota Raya to Jurong East Interchange & by what time difference & also the quality of vehicles used by HI in CW3 besides the fares.
If the fare is only S$ 3 then i'll find it reasonable since SJE is charging S$ 2.40 & you get lousy old MAN's quite often ! If HI's fleet is 100 % brand-new air-suspended charged-cooled M-B's or close to that, then 60 cents extra is definitely worthwhile for a better class of travelling experience !
SBST 160 ? i won't bother to mention it again. Yes their fare is lower BUT by how much only ?? The most by S$ 1.50 ? You save only around there but end up in some old Volvo B10M Mk.3 only with their famous lousy suspension ride comfort for say 1+ hour journey ?!?? Based on their vehicles used, i'll put it the most @ 50:50 SBST's competitive appeal for someone going from JEI to Kota Raya or vice-versa.
It's something like you choose between a modern M-B taxi or a old lousy non M-B taxi with a some fare & time difference, the cheaper & lousier vehicle then becomes NOT automatically the prefered choice !
I agree with you though on that unless you're in the Western region of Singapore going to JB, CW3 would tend to be less attractive then. But then they have their CW2 & CW1 for those from other regions of this island !Originally posted by sbst275:Already if bth sides are no jam, 160 faster to Kota Raya
I must warn you that in the happening that bth sides are jammed, you can be stucked @ Tuas for 3 hrs, the worst ever was 4.5 hrs
Antother issue abt the fare is, $3, unless you stay @ Western side, it would be not worth it -
Anyway,
in that Ch 8 news
CW1 and CW2 off peak frequency would be reduced... Sekali like CW3, 30 mins -
Understandable why off-peak frequency should be reduced, so long as load is low or non existent during such times !
Anyway, i just riden CW3 from Kota Raya to Jurong East Interchange so as to get a 1st hand experience of the route & vehicle type used.
Noted the following approx. driving times;
Kota Raya to Taman Perling 30 mins.
Taman Perling/Sutera to Bukit Indah, another 10 mins.
Bukit Indah to Johor CIQ complex, another 10 mins.
Johor CIQ complex to Tuas CIQ complex, another 10 mins.
Tuas to Jurong East Interchange, another 20 mins.
Therefore total approx. nett driving time from Kota Raya to Jurong East Interchange 80 mins.
I say nett driving time because i exclude any waiting time for passengers before moving off or if changing bus, the next vehicle not yet come etc. which are 'standard operational constrains' among various operators so as such i focus on the nett travel times instead to minimise the exceptional situations.
As for vehicle used, it's a new generation air-suspended charged-cooled M-B with manual gear, as i expected. Excellent suspension ride comfort as such but the German Vogel Sitze seats on the firm side, like on the TIBS vehicles. Reasonable 3-figure speed performance on the Johor highways with scenic ride nice views of Bukit Indah houses etc. The 4-valve head engine supposed to be in-line 6-cylinder but M-B seems to know how to make it sound like their V8's but this time with plenty of turbocharger whine with plenty of 'push'. It's nowhere as 'refined' as their real V8's unfortunately. But i've not encountered another make which has emulated the V8 engine 'feel' on a 6-cylinder engine so sucessfully ! O 405 begins to sound more 'boring' after this experience ! B10M even more boring (+ uncomfortable as well) so much so one dozes off instead of enjoying the journey, only to be awakend by it's lousy suspension !
From initial impressions, i'll say this CW3 would appeal to those going between Jurong East & say Taman Perling/Sutera/Bukit Indah especially & vice-versa.
But during times when the Causeway is severely choked up (which does still happen regularly unlike the 2nd Link which is far less often) then it'll be more appealing to those going to Kota Raya to use it as well.
As i don't consider CW3 & SBST 160 as direct but just close competitors since they use very different routes to reach the same final destinations, both would be expected to retain some market of their own. But i'll give priority to CW3 over SBST 160 as far as feasible unless SBST uses better vehicles there !Originally posted by sbst275:Anyway,
in that Ch 8 news
CW1 and CW2 off peak frequency would be reduced... Sekali like CW3, 30 mins -
Think again...Originally posted by hseochin:Understandable why off-peak frequency should be reduced, so long as load is low or non existent during such times !
Anyway, i just riden CW3 from Kota Raya to Jurong East Interchange so as to get a 1st hand experience of the route & vehicle type used.
Noted the following approx. driving times;
Kota Raya to Taman Perling 30 mins.
Taman Perling/Sutera to Bukit Indah, another 10 mins.
Bukit Indah to Johor CIQ complex, another 10 mins.
Johor CIQ complex to Tuas CIQ complex, another 10 mins.
Tuas to Jurong East Interchange, another 20 mins.
Therefore total approx. nett driving time from Kota Raya to Jurong East Interchange 80 mins.
I say nett driving time because i exclude any waiting time for passengers before moving off or if changing bus, the next vehicle not yet come etc. which are 'standard operational constrains' among various operators so as such i focus on the nett travel times instead to minimise the exceptional situations.
As for vehicle used, it's a new generation air-suspended charged-cooled M-B with manual gear, as i expected. Excellent suspension ride comfort as such but the German Vogel Sitze seats on the firm side, like on the TIBS vehicles. Reasonable 3-figure speed performance on the Johor highways with scenic ride nice views of Bukit Indah houses etc. The 4-valve head engine supposed to be in-line 6-cylinder but M-B seems to know how to make it sound like their V8's but this time with plenty of turbocharger whine with plenty of 'push'. It's nowhere as 'refined' as their real V8's unfortunately. But i've not encountered another make which has emulated the V8 engine 'feel' on a 6-cylinder engine so sucessfully ! O 405 begins to sound more 'boring' after this experience ! B10M even more boring (+ uncomfortable as well) so much so one dozes off instead of enjoying the journey, only to be awakend by it's lousy suspension !
From initial impressions, i'll say this CW3 would appeal to those going between Jurong East & say Taman Perling/Sutera/Bukit Indah especially & vice-versa.
But during times when the Causeway is severely choked up (which does still happen regularly unlike the 2nd Link which is far less often) then it'll be more appealing to those going to Kota Raya to use it as well.
As i don't consider CW3 & SBST 160 as direct but just close competitors since they use very different routes to reach the same final destinations, both would be expected to retain some market of their own. But i'll give priority to CW3 over SBST 160 as far as feasible unless SBST uses better vehicles there !
If bth are jammed, 2nd Link is very jialat...
And it takes longer in normal traffic condition -
aiyo, will a normal person care how the engine sounds like...to them all are boring....and they dun care so much about the details and technical side....as long as they tink tat it is fast can liao.....altough SJE uses lousy MAN buses, but they still gt plenty of commuters....Originally posted by hseochin:As for vehicle used, it's a new generation air-suspended charged-cooled M-B with manual gear, as i expected. Excellent suspension ride comfort as such but the German Vogel Sitze seats on the firm side, like on the TIBS vehicles. Reasonable 3-figure speed performance on the Johor highways with scenic ride nice views of Bukit Indah houses etc. The 4-valve head engine supposed to be in-line 6-cylinder but M-B seems to know how to make it sound like their V8's but this time with plenty of turbocharger whine with plenty of 'push'. It's nowhere as 'refined' as their real V8's unfortunately. But i've not encountered another make which has emulated the V8 engine 'feel' on a 6-cylinder engine so sucessfully ! O 405 begins to sound more 'boring' after this experience ! B10M even more boring (+ uncomfortable as well) so much so one dozes off instead of enjoying the journey, only to be awakend by it's lousy suspension !
and can u stop putting so many !!! question marks in ur posts...it makes u sound as if u r very angry and work up and makes reading uncomfortable... -
Sounds very exciting. I'll give it a shot this weekend. For a citybus chassis, I find it interesting that it was fitted with a manual transmission (going retro, perhaps?). I thought it was automatic. Which makes me wonder, is it the same type of chassis as the ones used for the Causeway Link Express?Originally posted by hseochin:As for vehicle used, it's a new generation air-suspended charged-cooled M-B with manual gear, as i expected. Excellent suspension ride comfort as such but the German Vogel Sitze seats on the firm side, like on the TIBS vehicles. Reasonable 3-figure speed performance on the Johor highways with scenic ride nice views of Bukit Indah houses etc. The 4-valve head engine supposed to be in-line 6-cylinder but M-B seems to know how to make it sound like their V8's but this time with plenty of turbocharger whine with plenty of 'push'. It's nowhere as 'refined' as their real V8's unfortunately. But i've not encountered another make which has emulated the V8 engine 'feel' on a 6-cylinder engine so sucessfully ! O 405 begins to sound more 'boring' after this experience ! B10M even more boring (+ uncomfortable as well) so much so one dozes off instead of enjoying the journey, only to be awakend by it's lousy suspension ! -
No, i don't use '!' to show anger as i'm basically not an angry person !
My style of using this '!' rather is to draw attention or emphasize certain areas which i sense people tend to ignore or overlook so as to draw their attention to take note of something. Got the idea of using '!' this way from the exclamation mark symbol used in the vehicle breakdown warning triangle. Just 1 of my style of expression. You don't have to like it, agree with it, or read it.
Well, i agree that to many a 'normal' person i.e. not a bus or coach related researcher, engineer or enthuisast, these people would find all engine sounds boring because they don't have the passion to go for those things as their interest lie elsewhere !
Just like if you try to tell me about warships, fighter aircraft or battle tanks i'll most certainly go to sleep instead, or play my audio recording of bus engine sounds which i recorded as far back as 15 years ago. But i know there's quite some people with interests in those above mentioned things which i don't & vice-versa.
As for not caring about technical details of the buses they use, i understand because not many of them have the know-how to make sense of such details !
Yes, SJE still get almost full-load on their lousy old MAN's sometimes but that's when those commutors don't see another superior model coming behind yet & they don't know when that's coming & don't always want to wait so they just put up with what's there then. I've been thru those situations many times especially when i'm in a hurry so i can understand. BUT the interesting thing will be that if there's a better model parked next to a lousier one somehow i observe even such 'normal' persons seemingly ignorant about technical stuff would tend to know how to board the better model !
I recall some 13 years ago when i was working in Sumitomo in Jurong here.
The factory chartered private buses to transport its staff to various regions on this island. Those days the OH 1318 was still very new here & to my surprise & agreement, i even came across 1 housewife type production worker who spoke out that she prefered that model over another Hino. All she seemed to able to say was 'that one better' & that she looked forward to taking that bus again.
So that's tells me that out there, there's seems a silent majority of such 'normal' people who may not know much of the technical aspect of bus engineering etc., yet these people know how to go for a better model, but only when they see 1 available next to another. Otherwise, they just put up with what's on the table till the next time the better 1 comes along ! That's the mentality i observe applicable elsewhere too, like with SJE @ Ban San terminal.
If i'm @ Jurong East Interchange say & waiting for route 105 & there's O 405 & B10M available, i'll prefer to take the O 405 but if the B10M starts to go 1st, then i might just put up with it if i'm more in a hurry, sort of thing.
Talking about fastness, based on my travel experience with CW3, i'll put it ~ 40 mins. between Taman Bukit Indah & Jurong East Interchange under normal traffic. The passenger loading from Singapore direction seemed higher than from Johor direction towards Singapore. If going by other ways (i.e. non CW3) then typically it takes 40 mins. between Kota Raya & Bukit Indah alone + the time taken to Kota Raya from Jurong East Interchange via Causeway, which is more prone to jams than 2nd Link. So in such situations, CW3 can be faster towards Johor Baru from Jurong East.
Interesting to see the effect of the Causeway jams on the passenger loading for CW3. HI has a potentially good trump card with CW3, especially when the new administrative region in Johor is ready & more activity shifts there from the over congested JB bandar area. Also the availability of many new houses in Bukit Indah & Bandar Nusajaya & nearby regions there will indirectly create more demand for quicker access to Singapore without going thru the famous Causeway bottleneck !Originally posted by alex_cai92:aiyo, will a normal person care how the engine sounds like...to them all are boring....and they dun care so much about the details and technical side....as long as they tink tat it is fast can liao.....altough SJE uses lousy MAN buses, but they still gt plenty of commuters....
and can u stop putting so many !!! question marks in ur posts...it makes u sound as if u r very angry and work up and makes reading uncomfortable...